7. Are We Missing Something
In this chapter we will look at assumed biblical contradictions where the perceived problem is actually based on missing information – facts we do not have that would solve the difficulty if they were supplied. We will look at three examples of this: one from the Old Testament, one from the New Testament, and one which involves both. King Solomon's Stables Our first example comes from the Old Testament accounts of the stables of King Solomon. It is known that Solomon greatly developed ancient Israel's military capability, but two biblical verses regarding the stables for his chariot horses seem to conflict. The book of Kings tells us: "Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (1 Kings 4:26 NKJV), but the book of Chronicles asserts: "Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (2 Chronicles 9:25 NKJV).
While these two accounts agree on the number of horsemen (twelve thousand), they seem to disagree sharply on the number of stalls – forty thousand versus four thousand. Some translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, actually change the text of 1 Kings 4:26 to read "four thousand" so as to avoid an apparent contradiction with 2 Chronicles 9:25, because they presume the book of Kings must have had a scribal error introduced by the writing of "forty thousand" instead of "four thousand."
But this is an unnecessary supposition. First, we should ask why Solomon would need twelve thousand horsemen for only four thousand horses. Second, the two scriptural passages may simply describe different kind of stalls. In 1 Kings the forty thousand stalls are said to be for chariot horses (nothing is said about the chariots themselves), but in 2 Chronicles, the four thousand stalls that are mentioned were for horses and chariots.
Because each chariot was pulled by multiple horses, it would be natural for there to be fewer stalls for chariots. Additionally, the large "chariot stalls" may have been stables with individual stalls for each of the horses in the chariot's team as well as a holding area for the chariot itself. In other words, the four thousand stalls may have contained many more, smaller, stalls for the horses.
This is no different from a modern account saying that someone has a garage in their home but not specifying whether it is a single, double, or even triple garage with room for one, two, or more cars. In Kings and Chronicles we are simply not given enough information to know exactly what type the stalls were that are mentioned in each account, but that does not mean they contradict any more than saying in my neighborhood twelve homes have garages and the homes in my neighborhood have garages for 16 cars.
Another verse sheds a little more light on these accounts. In 2 Chronicles 1:14 we see that Solomon had "fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses," so we might wonder why would there be more chariot stalls (four thousand) than there were chariots (fourteen hundred). Historically we must realize that Solomon's standing army was probably garrisoned in specific areas, but stables may well have been built in a number of other fortified areas and outposts to house chariots and horses that might need to be moved to them temporarily, depending on defensive needs.
So there is no need to think that there must be a contradiction between the books of Kings and Chronicles regarding Solomon's stables, and most recent English Bible translations such as the ESV and CSB preserve the text of these different verses just as they were written. This example shows us that sometimes we can have all the information the Bible gives us and still need to think the situation through and to ask What am I missing? – What other fact could explain the difficulty?
Who Said That – Jeremiah or Zechariah? Our next example is that of a quotation in the Gospel of Matthew that is said to be from the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah: "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me'" (Matthew 27:9-10). The problem with these verses, according to many skeptics, is that the words quoted from Jeremiah do not appear anywhere in that book, but seem to appear in the book of Zechariah. If the Bible is inspired, the argument goes, why did Matthew incorrectly name the book from which the quotation is taken?
First, when we look closely at the frequently suggested "source" of Matthew's quotation – in Zechariah chapter 11 – we find that the wording is similar, though not identical, to Matthew's quote:
So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter" — the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12-13). Nevertheless, despite the differences, Zechariah's words certainly are closer to those quoted in Matthew than anything we can find in the book of Jeremiah. But although this prophecy cannot be found in the book of Jeremiah as we presently have it, and it is similar to what is found in Zechariah, we have no reason to suspect that the words found in Matthew were not spoken by Jeremiah at some point.
We must always remember that the Bible refers to a number of other books that are not included within the established Scriptures, but which are directly quoted or alluded to within them. The Old Testament mentions many works of this kind – such as the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18; etc.). In the same way, in the New Testament the biblical epistles of 2 Peter and Jude both refer to the "Book of Enoch" (2 Peter 2:4, 3:13; Jude 4, 6, 13–15), which was apparently known to the New Testament apostles but is not extant today, and Paul's epistle to the Colossians mentions an "epistle from Laodicea" (Colossians 4:16), which is not otherwise recorded.
So there are numerous instances where biblical writers quoted or alluded to works that were not included in the Bible itself and have been lost through the course of history. As a result, there is no reason to find it surprising if Matthew was able to quote specific words from Jeremiah that are not found in the book of Jeremiah itself. We know that Jeremiah also wrote the book of Lamentations, and it is perfectly possible that he wrote other books, too. Although we may be missing the evidence itself, there is nothing to stop us from presuming that Jeremiah did utter the prophecy recorded by Matthew. In fact, ironically, it is perfectly possible that Zechariah was actually alluding to that same no-longer-existing prophecy of Jeremiah!
In any case, the lesson we can learn from this example is an important one. Even if we do not have the actual source that Matthew's quote came from, we must remember the principle used in courts of law – that
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because we don't have something doesn't mean it didn't exist. If there is a logical reason why an apparent discrepancy may exist between verses, then it cannot be said that they must be in disagreement.
Sins or Debts? We will now look at a final example of this kind of situation in which we are missing information that would solve an apparent discrepancy between verses. Many readers of the Gospels notice that in the accounts of the Lord's Prayer given in Matthew and Luke, in many translations there is a small but significant difference regarding the petition for forgiveness. Luke records Jesus as saying: "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us" (Luke 11:4), while Matthew records: "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). Here, while Luke tells us that Jesus taught we should pray for forgiveness of our sins, Matthew records that we are to pray for the forgiveness of our debts. Matthew doubtless refers to spiritual rather than financial debts, but the two Gospels use different words with very different meanings.
Luke's account uses the Greek word hamartia which is the word most often used for sins in the New Testament. Matthew, however, uses the Greek words opheilēma and opheiletēs which are translated as "debts" and "debtors" and which convey the idea of a debt or responsibility we have not paid off.
But the differences between these Greek words is negated when we realize that Jesus certainly would not have given the Lord's Prayer in Greek, and that the language he would have used would have been Aramaic – the language spoken by the population of Judea in New Testament times. Unlike Greek, which has separate words for the ideas of sin and unpaid debts or responsibilities, Aramaic has a single word khoba signifying both sins and debts.
This means that the petition for forgiveness given by Jesus was interpreted as referring to "sins" by Luke and "debts" by Matthew (who was, of course, a tax collector!). In fact, there is a clear hint of this double meaning in Luke's Gospel where the Greek actually includes both ideas in stating: "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us" (Luke 11:4, emphases added). Although this double meaning does not appear in the NIV, it is accurately recorded in the ESV, NKJV, CSB, etc. It is as though Luke tried to include both possible meanings of the word Jesus used.
So the accounts of Matthew and Luke do not contradict each other. Matthew simply stresses the debt aspect of the word Jesus undoubtedly would have used, while Luke stresses the sin aspect – though he also manages to include the idea of indebtedness in his account.
Once again we find that missing information, when brought into the picture, gives a clear explanation for what might seem to be a contradiction in the Scriptures. Each of the examples we looked at in this chapter was based on a different kind of situation, but in all cases it is possible to find or to surmise extra information that explains what the Bible says.
CONCLUSION: MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES
Now that we have looked at the seven major ways in which verses that might seem to conflict can be reconciled, we can add a concluding principle to our examination of supposed biblical contradictions: the fact that in many cases there are actually multiple ways in which supposed contradictions can be solved! As is often the case, the three Old Testament examples that we look at in this chapter all have a number of possible answers. Did All the Livestock Die or Not? In the narrative of the plagues sent on Egypt described in the book of Exodus, we are told that in the fifth plague "All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died" (Exodus 9:6). Later, in the seventh plague, Moses told Pharaoh that any livestock not brought under shelter would be killed by a great hailstorm:
Give an order now to bring your livestock and everything you have in the field to a place of shelter, because the hail will fall on every person and animal that has not been brought in and is still out in the field, and they will die (Exodus 9:19). If all the Egyptians' animals were killed in the fifth plague, it is often asked, how could there be animals left to shelter from the seventh? There are at least four possible answers to this seeming contradiction:
First (using the principle we learned of asking "Does it Actually Say That?"), we find that the exact wording of Exodus 9:3 is "the Lord will bring a terrible plague on your livestock in the field," so it may be that livestock not in the fields was not affected. The ancient Egyptians had extensive stables and holding areas for livestock, because many of the fields were covered in water during the annual inundation of the Nile River.
Second (using the principle of "Does it Really Mean That?"), we find that the words "all" and "every" in Hebrew do not mean "all" or "every" in all cases. Just as in modern English we can say "Everyone was at the party," meaning a great many people or all the people of a certain type such as a group of co-workers, so in ancient Hebrew the words "all" and "every" sometimes simply mean a great many or all those of a certain type.
Third (using this same principle), we can realize that the expression "all the livestock" could mean all the different types of livestock, animals of every kind – horses, cows, sheep, goats, etc. – as, in fact, we find in Exodus 9:3: "your horses, donkeys and camels and … your cattle, sheep and goats."
Fourth (thinking about the principle of "Did Something Change?"), we might realize that something had happened that changed the situation for the Egyptians. We are specifically told that in the fifth plague none of the livestock of the Hebrews was affected (Exodus 9:7), so it is possible that by the time of the seventh plague the Egyptians had forcibly requisitioned many of these animals and now had them in their own fields.
Given all these possibilities, there is no reason we need see any contradiction between what Exodus tells us occurred in the fifth and seventh plagues. The fact that the supposed contradiction is an obvious one that occurs within a few verses of the original statement indicates that the ancient Hebrews were fully aware of what was said but saw no problem regarding the situation. As a result, we need not, either. Did Chariots of Iron Defeat the Word of God? Two references to the conquest of the Promised Land found in the biblical books of Joshua and Judges have long been claimed to be contradictory. As we will see, however, there are actually multiple possible explanations for these verses. Notice first what Joshua states regarding God's promise to the Israelites: but the hill country shall be yours, for though it is a forest, you shall clear it and possess it to its farthest borders. For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong. (Joshua 17:18 ESV). Now compare that clear promise with what is recorded in Judges:
And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19 ESV).
When we compare these verses, it might appear that – despite God's promise of victory over the iron chariots of the Canaanites – the Israelites were unable to defeat this enemy and their formidable war machines. But consider the following possible explanations for this apparent contradiction or failure of God's promise.
First (using the principle of "Does it Actually Say That?"), we should carefully consider the actual wording of the promise given in Joshua 17:18. The Israelites were told that the mountain country to its "farthest borders" would be given to them. This does not specifically say that the Israelites would be helped against the Canaanites beyond the mountain region. When we turn to Judges 1:19, it tells us that Israel could not drive out the Canaanites with their iron-armored chariots from the lowlands. In other words, the area they could not subdue was not the mountainous region of the Promised Land, but the flat coastal plain beside it.
Second (using the principle of "Did Something Change?"), we can see that there may be no conflict between the two verses because Judges 1:19 was written some time after Joshua 17:18. God's promise to drive out the Canaanites may have been fulfilled, but it clearly was not a promise in perpetuity – other verses show that Canaanites were able to move back into Israel as time went on, after Israel had taken control of the area. So Judges 1 may refer to Israel's failure to establish lasting control of the lowland areas.
We should always remember the principle of conditionality behind the type of promise we find in Joshua 17:18. God promised the Israelites that he would assist them and be with them in battle as long as they obeyed him, but he also made it clear that he would withdraw his help if they turned from him. In fact, we find a specific reference to the failure of the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites from some areas in exactly this context in the book of Judges:
I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you' (Judges 2:1-3, emphasis added).
So, despite the original promise given to Israel in Joshua 17:18, we see that God seems to have rescinded his promise – as he warned he would – when Israel did not obey him. Going to or from Jericho? Three of the Gospels tell the story of the healing of two blind men by Jesus in the vicinity of Jericho. The accounts agree in most details regarding this story, though there are a couple of differences which sometimes confuse readers and are labeled "contradictions" by skeptics.
Matthew 20:29-34 states that two blind men were healed, while Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 mention only one blind man. But the fact that Mark and Luke concentrate only on the one blind man may mean nothing more than that he was perhaps the leader and spokesman of the two men.
Seemingly more problematic, Luke says the healing occurred as Jesus was entering Jericho, while Mark and Matthew record it happening as Jesus left Jericho. But there are several possible answers to this apparent conundrum.
First (asking "Does it Really Mean That?"), a little research will confirm that the Greek verb engizo, translated "drew near" in Luke 18:35, can also mean "to be near." There are several instances of the word being used this way in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Kings 21:2; Jeremiah 23:23; etc.) and in the New Testament, including usage by Luke himself (for example, Luke 19:29, and compare Matthew 21:1). Given this understanding, Luke 18:35 can be understood as simply meaning that the healing took place while Jesus was near Jericho.
Next (remembering to ask "Did Something Change?"), a little bit of research also will discover the fact that there were, by Jesus' time, two cities of Jericho: the mound of the anciently destroyed city and the later inhabited city of Jericho close by. So it is possible that Jesus could have healed the two men as he was leaving the area of the ancient city and entering the newer city of Jericho – in which case the miracle could be said to have occurred as he left or as he entered Jericho.
Yet another possibility ("Are We Missing Something?") is that, while Jesus was approaching Jericho, the blind men cried out, but were not heard because of the noise of the crowds. The next day, after Jesus stayed the night in the city, they may have waited on the road leaving Jericho
(knowing that Jesus and the other pilgrims were going to Jerusalem for the Passover), and then called out again and more loudly. We have no way to prove this possibility; but looking at the situation carefully and thinking about what might have happened suggests this perfectly possible scenario.
So there are at least three viable answers to the apparent discrepancy between Luke and the other Gospel writers regarding the location of the healing of the blind men. While we do not have enough information to know which answer is most likely correct, the fact that there are several possible answers discounts any need to think that there must be a contradiction in the scriptural accounts.
Keeping the Possibilities in Mind We have only considered multiple possible answers for the three examples given in this chapter, but a great many of the supposed contradictions we looked at in the chapters of this book also have other possible solutions. Whenever we find verses that seem not to be in harmony with each other, we can systematically work through the various principles that we have outlined and more often than not we will discover two or even more possible answers to the problem.
Of course, we only need one possible answer to any seeming contradiction to realize that the verses may not contradict each other at all. Even if we cannot prove which answer is correct, there are often numerous possible ways in which we can see that biblical contradictions do not exist.
APPENDIX: Does the New Testament Quote the Old
Testament Accurately? In studying the Bible, you may have noticed that when New Testament authors quote verses from the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), their quotations are often somewhat different from the wording of the verses they appear to be quoting.
This has led to skeptics claiming that the New Testament Christians misquoted or even "changed" the Bible in order to try to make their case and to show what they wanted the Scriptures to show. However, there are a number of simple answers to this question of why the wording of quotations in the New Testament often appears to be different from the quoted Old Testament verses themselves.
First, we must realize that our modern Bibles differ in many small details from the Scriptures that were available to the earliest Christians. The earliest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible on which most of our modern Old Testaments are based date to about AD 900, but before that time many copies of the Hebrew Bible had slight differences. The New Testament writers had access to these earlier versions of the biblical books, and it is those versions that they quote – meaning that their quotations often have slightly different wording from the same verses in our modern Bibles.
Next, we should be aware that not all the New Testament writers knew Hebrew. For example, Luke, the author of the third Gospel and the book of Acts – and evidently a speaker of Greek – may not have known the Hebrew language. He seems to frequently quote from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek that was made in the third and second centuries BC. The author of the book of Hebrews certainly was also more comfortable using Greek and never quotes directly from the Hebrew Bible – only from the Septuagint and other versions. And even the apostle Paul, though he clearly knew Hebrew, also used the Septuagint at times.
In fact, of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately two-thirds of them came from the Greek Septuagint translation, and these quotes often differ very slightly from the wording of the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament writers evidently had no difficulty in regarding such translations as the Word of God.
Also, we don't think it strange today when Christian teachers or preachers quote a specific translation in order to best make the point they are trying to get across. Sometimes a given translation uses the exact word that is being discussed – for example, confidence instead of faith – so a particular modern-day translation of the Bible may work best in a given message or under particular circumstances. The New Testament writers were no different and seem to have sometimes chosen a version of the Bible that provided wording that best fit their message.
Another thing to keep in mind is that today we can easily access a Bible in order to quote a particular verse, but few early Christians owned complete copies or even parts of the Scriptures. The New Testament writers often had to rely on memory in order to include a biblical verse or passage in their own writing. Writers like the apostle Paul (who quotes the Old Testament some 183 times in his epistles) knew the Scriptures well enough to be able to quote them exactly or close to exactly from memory.
Finally, the writers of the New Testament sometimes combined two or more verses from the Hebrew Bible in order to make their point. This is no different from today when in our own writing we quote from several pages of a book or even from several sources. But first century writers did not utilize footnotes or other forms of citation (which appeared much later in history) to note exactly where each quotation came from. For example, in his epistles, Paul sometimes introduced quotations from the Old Testament by saying something like "it is written in the law" (1 Corinthians 9:9; etc.). But at other times, when he was confident that his readers would recognize the source, he simply made the quotation without even mentioning where it was from (Romans 2:24; etc.).
Even when verses from different areas of the Scriptures were quoted together, if the New Testament writers knew they were writing to individuals who knew the Scriptures well, they often simply quoted the verses next to each other without mentioning where they were from. They knew that many of their readers would not only recognize the verses they quoted, but also would know the setting in which they appeared.
For all these reasons, it is entirely natural that we find the way the ancient authors quoted biblical texts is often somewhat different from the way we would quote them today.
ABOUT OUR BOOKS This book is distributed without charge by the publisher. Its material is copyright, but sections may be reproduced in fair-use quotation, and the book may be freely distributed as long as it is given without charge. "Freely you have received; freely give" (Matthew 10:8).
If you do not have access to a Bible to read the additional verses given in each chapter of this book, to continue your study, or for Bible study at any time, we recommend a website such as BibleGateway.com which provides free access to many translations of the Bible in over seventy languages.
You can find more free Christian e-books and Bibles on the publisher's website at FreeChristianEBooks.org, as well as on their other websites TacticalChristianity.org and LivingWithFaith.org. New books are added periodically.